Here we go again

[jpappl]

The post by me that he is quoting IS correct, Norsefire. The Supreme Court of the USA has already decided that it is not the business of the government to spread religious beliefs. This was decided in the 1960's, during the so-called Warren Court era, when Chief Justice Earl Warren was making a series of liberal decisions that improved our country a great deal. We owe the integration of race in our schools in large part to him.

Yes and if Norse wants to take it back up with the court he can go ahead. Until then it has been decided and again I hope it remains that way.

Besides teaching that God exists, and that God is the source of moral law, the curriculum would also teach information that isn't even true. Saying that the Constitution was written with in God in mind is not quite correct. The most prominent founders, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison, were DEISTS, not christians, and they believed that God had long ago abandoned the Earth to its own devices. These idiots in Texas want to teach people a whole lot of nonsense, while having a complete lack of knowledge of the beliefs that the framers actually had.

The sole purpose of all of these attempts is to provide legitimacy, they currently are not on the same playing field.

What they want is for creationism to be taught alongside evolution. They will not stop trying to find a way in the door and will use whatever justification they think will fly. Intelligent design, you name it.

They figure that if we approve the teaching of creationism alongside evolution they will have their legitimacy again.

 

[Norsefire]

Again you're missing the point: the people are funding it, the people must have a say in what is taught.

 

[Enmos]

It's the school's business to teach knowledge. Whether you believe in god or not, you surely must know that religion plays a major part in our society as well as that of most other societies on Earth. Knowledge about those religions is most certainly important ...not to believe, but to know and be able to communicate with other people of the world.

See? It is the business of the schools to teach "about" religions. Hiding that knowledge from the kids is a freakin' crime ...or should be.

Baron Max

Yes I know. But it's not the schools business to indoctrinate children.
Teach them about religion and teach them to be critical.

 

[Lori_7]

All around you.

i don't know where you are, but it's not evident around me at all. quite the opposite actually.

Capital, and technology.

capital and technology does not justify or depend upon greed. and if greed is what is driving technology, then that technology is detrimental inherently.

I like to stay away from ambiguous terms like "cultural progress" or "social progress" because these are extremely subjective.

yes, because for all of our technology and social progress, things continue to get worse and worse. welcome to babylon.

I never said otherwise; there's a lesser capacity for damage and abuse, however, since people are not granted monopolistic power.

that would depend on whether the intentions and righteousness of the one in authority was greater than or less than the norm found in the masses.

 

[Lori_7]

i wanted to suggest something here regarding education. my brother, who is an atheist or agnostic, or whatever you call it...he has no evidence of a god and can not believe in a god without it (which i commend him for), is very educated. part of his education is in religion. and he's actually pursued this education on his own. he loves history and is an expert in this area, and he realizes that religion is a huge part of history. it's ironic that my brother, who does not believe there is a god, knows much more about religion than i, who does believe there is a god, the difference between us being a spiritual experience.

an education regarding religion does not force indoctrination into a religion, and actually, an indoctrination into a religion does not force a belief in god. more often than not from what i've seen, it forces someone to lie about it.

i don't think it's ever a good idea to turn away from knowledge, so what are we afraid of?

maybe we're afraid of tyrants like bush who was successful in anhilating more of our civil liberties during his term than ever before in the history of our country, all in the name of god. and that's valid.

 

[lucifers angel]

Here is yet another attempt to insert religion into public schools. No suprise it's in Texas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/christianity-religion-texas-history-education

I especially like:



and



He's an expert ? Expert in what, hate speech.

religion is taught in the schools in the UK anyway, so whats the problem?

 

[jpappl]

religion is taught in the schools in the UK anyway, so whats the problem?

I personally don't see anything wrong with creating a class on religion, although in the states, I just don't see it happening because it would be abused at some point and that is the fear. Again it's not about protecting only the non-religious.

The problem here is that this is not about religion, it's about one religion.

It's an attempt to sanction a religion in the public schools, plain and simple.

 

[Norsefire]

The people funding this must have a choice in what is taught. Otherwise abolish public schooling and leave it to the [more efficient and better quality] private sector.

 

[jpappl]

Again you're missing the point: the people are funding it, the people must have a say in what is taught.

I understand your point I just disagree with it.

We have been down that road. We are not a theocracy, because of that we don't want the government sanctioning religion.

There are a lot of things that we pay taxes for that we may not agree with. You don't have to stay and pay, but if you do you have to pay along with the rest of us.

The people do have a say in what is taught, but some people don't get to force their religious beliefs on other people. So we don't teach it in public schools.

 

[Norsefire]

We have been down that road. We are not a theocracy, because of that we don't want the government sanctioning religion.

Yet the government sanctions a one-sided view of history and their own statist agenda.

There are a lot of things that we pay taxes for that we may not agree with. You don't have to stay and pay, but if you do you have to pay along with the rest of us.

Actually that assumes the gov't's monopoly on the land is legitimate, and I disagree with that. I should be able to stay and not face their extortion.

The people do have a say in what is taught, but some people don't get to force their religious beliefs on other people. So we don't teach it in public schools.

Then the gov't should stop teaching a narrow-minded view on history, stop teaching opinions as facts, and the teaching should teach all points of view; oh yea, and the pledge has got to go.

 

[jpappl]

The people funding this must have a choice in what is taught. Otherwise abolish public schooling and leave it to the [more efficient and better quality] private sector.

This is a different issue.

And I have heard this all before. Ever been to an inner city public school ?

Do you really think that private schools would come in there and try to open a school and run at a loss.

The rich already send their kids to private schools. We have them, they have choices too.

 

[Norsefire]

This is a different issue.

The only reason the teaching of religion in schools is an issue is because it's public.

Do you really think that private schools would come in there and try to open a school and run at a loss.

Why would they run at a loss?

The rich already send their kids to private schools. We have them, they have choices too.

Except private schooling is expensive primarily because:

a) you are forced to pay for public schooling even if you do not use it.
b) the state thus renders competition irrelevant because they are able to extort and fund these "free" schools while forcing people to pay for them whether they use them or not

And so, private schools are expensive because of the practices of the state, and the anti-competitive activities it practices

If you abolish all public schools private schooling will be the only way to go, and people will be able to pay for what they want, and there will be competition.

Problem solved.

 

[jpappl]

Yet the government sanctions a one-sided view of history and their own statist agenda.

I said we were not a theocracy I didn't say we weren't trying to create faithful patriots, just like any other country does.

Actually that assumes the gov't's monopoly on the land is legitimate, and I disagree with that. I should be able to stay and not face their extortion.

You can stay and try to change it. That is your right.

Then the gov't should stop teaching a narrow-minded view on history, stop teaching opinions as facts, and the teaching should teach all points of view; oh yea, and the pledge has got to go.

The under god part should go. I just don't say it.

I don't disagree with the idea that we are merely skimming over historical events. Cherry picking as we go for a pro US slant.

But the public schools grades through 12 have a lot to cover, can't cover it all and are trying to get the basics in place. We have higher education facilities at a price for anybody who wants to further their education and can delve deeper into subjects to gain a more complete understanding about any subject they want.

We also offer funds and loans for these individuals often at taxpayers expense.

 

[Norsefire]

I said we were not a theocracy I didn't say we weren't trying to create faithful patriots, just like any other country does.

In other words, indoctrination. The word "indoctrination" doesn't necessarily have to do with religion, that's just one example, just like the example of the state indoctrinating its citizens.

The under god part should go. I just don't say it.

The entire thing has got to go, from public schools

I don't disagree with the idea that we are merely skimming over historical events. Cherry picking as we go for a pro US slant.

History is presented from a one-sided perspective and everbody's point of view is not taught.

For instance, for the Holocaust they teach children that Hitler was "bad and evil"; that's an opinion. They need to teach the facts of the event, and teach both sides' point of views.

We also offer funds and loans for these individuals often at taxpayers expense.

Which is why it's a problem; public property creates more problems than it solves. For instance, everybody can't get what they want, and there's a lack of accountability.

 

[jpappl]

The only reason the teaching of religion in schools is an issue is because it's public.

Correct.

Why would they run at a loss?

Go to any major cities poorer communities and you will have your answer.

Except private schooling is expensive primarily because:

a) you are forced to pay for public schooling even if you do not use it.
b) the state thus renders competition irrelevant because they are able to extort and fund these "free" schools while forcing people to pay for them whether they use them or not

And so, private schools are expensive because of the practices of the state, and the anti-competitive activities it practices

If you abolish all public schools private schooling will be the only way to go, and people will be able to pay for what they want, and there will be competition.

Problem solved.

Sounds so simple but it's not.

Again, visit a major cities poorer community and you will see the problem. What is going to happen to the majority of people when they can't afford to go to school, doesn't have any way to enforce attendance.

What will happen to the society when illiteracy is even higher than it is now and then grows with each generation.

Your assumption that private schools will fill the void is very naive.

 

[Norsefire]

People will be able to afford it; competiton will bring prices down and quality up.

Furthermore, it's in the best interest of the schools to make themselves affordable and offer options to make it affordable for those that can't afford it; not only for statistical purposes, but also because there's a huge demand for skilled labor.

 

[jpappl]

People will be able to afford it; competiton will bring prices down and quality up.

Furthermore, it's in the best interest of the schools to make themselves affordable and offer options to make it affordable for those that can't afford it; not only for statistical purposes, but also because there's a huge demand for skilled labor.

Which ones will be able to afford it. How do you know that, have you crunched the numbers.

If they only get what they put in, what kind of schools can we expect in the inner cities, my concern is that we won't have very many if any at all.

So yes, the rich are subsidizing the poor but it's better than letting the poor completely fall off the map.

Talk about a lack of skilled and educated labor force.

 

[Norsefire]

It's because of the anti-competitive and monopolistic practices of the gov't that private schools are expensive today. Don't you get what I'm saying? The price will drop. People will still demand schools and education, and schools will be able to more affordable, and cater to a larger consumer base.

 

[jpappl]

It's because of the anti-competitive and monopolistic practices of the gov't that private schools are expensive today. Don't you get what I'm saying? The price will drop. People will still demand schools and education, and schools will be able to more affordable, and cater to a larger consumer base.

Yes, I understand the part about competition.

But you are not understanding the reality of the situation. You are being an idealist and not allowing all of the facts to enter into your propostion.

The competition will be for the elite, the people with money who can afford it. Nobody is going to go into to competition for failure. Those who have no money to pay for schools, just won't. They will pay for food and rent before that, what happens then ?

 

[Norsefire]

I don't get what you're saying; those people won't be any better off in any other state.